Share this story

I can't tell you who's going to win the 2022 IndyCar championship. I can't tell you which team they'll be driving for. But I can tell you that they'll do it with hybrid power. On Thursday morning, IndyCar together with Honda and Chevrolet (who supply the sport with engines) announced that the next iteration of its race car will boast a hybrid system to go with new turbocharged V6 engines. The series is aiming for a combined output of around 900hp (670kW) for the next-generation open-wheel cars, with an electric motor-generator unit contributing about 50hp (37kW) to the party.

"It's an exciting time for IndyCar with the forthcoming evolution of the cars and innovations like the hybrid powertrain being incorporated into the new engine," IndyCar President Jay Frye said. “As we move toward the future, we will remain true to our racing roots of being fast, loud and authentic, and simultaneously have the ability to add hybrid technology that is an important element for the series and our engine manufacturers.”

Further Reading

IndyCar says this will consist of a multiphase motor-generator unit, an inverter, and an electrical storage system. A similar move is already in store for the next generation of IMSA prototypes, which will also be introduced in 2022. However, unlike in Formula 1 or the World Endurance Championship, every team will use the same components to help control costs in these instances. This does somewhat undermine arguments about technology transfer and road-relevance, although that's not really the preserve of open-wheel racing in the first place.

As a result of the hybrid decision, IndyCar is going to postpone by a year the introduction of new engines, originally scheduled for 2021. These will grow slightly in capacity, from the 2.2L turbocharged V6es used now to a 2.4L turbo V6. These are expected to make 800hp normally, with an additional 50hp "push-to-pass" system. IndyCar says that the boost of electric power will also be integrated into push-to-pass, and we believe that the system will feed power and torque to the rear wheels, as with Formula 1.

Not for ovals?

Further Reading

In announcing the hybrid initiative, the series' press release explicitly mentions just street circuits and road courses; there's no mention of ovals in general or the Indianapolis 500 in particular.

The problem with a hybrid system that regenerates kinetic energy under braking is that it doesn't work if there is no braking. And these days the ovals that IndyCar uses are mostly flat-out the entire lap—at best a driver might have to lift the throttle. (It's a problem that NASCAR—with a far higher concentration of oval races in its calendar—is also grappling with in its own deliberation process regarding the introduction of hybrids.)

An idea suggested by veteran racing journalist Marshall Pruett would be the introduction of an energy recovery system fitted to the engine's turbocharger, similar to the ERS-H systems used in F1 or by the Porsche 919 Hybrid. Those turbo-based hybrid systems are far more complex (read: expensive), though. An alternative idea for ovals could be to just recover energy when decelerating into the pit lane, with drivers then using that energy when exiting the pits again.

There will be other benefits to a hybrid IndyCar. For instance, the cars won't need remote starters any longer, which should cut out an awful lot of caution periods during races. Currently, if a car stalls following a spin or some other incident on track, safety workers have to get it going again, which means neutralizing the race under a safety car for several laps.

I never understood the appeal of ovals. I always liked seeing tight racing in corners and straights of various sizes and radii. Racing in ovals seemed to me like an American thing to attract Nascar fans. If any of you like ovals; can you please write why, so I can consider your opinion(s)?

The part I'm most excited about is the drivers being able to restart their engines.

As a fan and viewer of F1 (which brought in this capability when it went hybrid in 2014), I can tell you it is definitely nice - no longer is stalling a car terminal, it's pretty neat to see them fire it up and get going again.

While in principle it's nice to see, it also seems like a rather token effort. 50hp when Chevy have 3 years to get their engine working? (Honda should have far fewer issues since there's no MGU-H which is the part that made their recent F1 engines turds until the last couple of seasons)I can fully understand them settling on a design with a lower output than current F1 since they want to save money and F1 is literally 'spend as much as you can afford' at least for a couple more years, but a goal of less than 1/3 the power output of what is currently being deployed elsewhere is a bit of a joke.

While in principle it's nice to see, it also seems like a rather token effort. 50hp when Chevy have 3 years to get their engine working? (Honda should have far fewer issues since there's no MGU-H which is the part that made their recent F1 engines turds until the last couple of seasons)I can fully understand them settling on a design with a lower output than current F1 since they want to save money and F1 is literally 'spend as much as you can afford' at least for a couple more years, but a goal of less than 1/3 the power output of what is currently being deployed elsewhere is a bit of a joke.

I agree, somewhat, but you have to start somewhere. This is good for the sport and ultimately will probably lead to bigger and better things down the road.

I never understood the appeal of ovals. I always liked seeing tight racing in corners and straights of various sizes and radii. Racing in ovals seemed to me like an American thing to attract Nascar fans. If any of you like ovals; can you please write why, so I can consider your opinion(s)?

One thing that makes me prefer IndyCar ovals is that on-track lead changes are more frequent. The Indianapolis 500 a few years back had, IIRC, about 68 lead changes over 200 laps.

I soured on road courses a couple of decades ago while watching Formula I races. At that time, it seemed that almost every race was a 90-minute parade of cars following Michael Schumacher.

I never understood the appeal of ovals. I always liked seeing tight racing in corners and straights of various sizes and radii. Racing in ovals seemed to me like an American thing to attract Nascar fans. If any of you like ovals; can you please write why, so I can consider your opinion(s)?

One thing that makes me prefer IndyCar ovals is that on-track lead changes are more frequent. The Indianapolis 500 a few years back had, IIRC, about 68 lead changes over 200 laps.

I soured on road courses a couple of decades ago while watching Formula I races. At that time, it seemed that almost every race was a 90-minute parade of cars following Michael Schumacher.

I never understood the appeal of ovals. I always liked seeing tight racing in corners and straights of various sizes and radii. Racing in ovals seemed to me like an American thing to attract Nascar fans. If any of you like ovals; can you please write why, so I can consider your opinion(s)?

One thing that makes me prefer IndyCar ovals is that on-track lead changes are more frequent. The Indianapolis 500 a few years back had, IIRC, about 68 lead changes over 200 laps.

I soured on road courses a couple of decades ago while watching Formula I races. At that time, it seemed that almost every race was a 90-minute parade of cars following Michael Schumacher.

In the context of that comment road courses refers to the majority of the F1 calander, which also has a smattering of street circuits ie Monaco and Singapore, thrown in. Australia and Canada also technically fit into that category, although the circuits drive somewhat closer to a traditional road course than a typical street circuit.

While in principle it's nice to see, it also seems like a rather token effort. 50hp when Chevy have 3 years to get their engine working? (Honda should have far fewer issues since there's no MGU-H which is the part that made their recent F1 engines turds until the last couple of seasons)I can fully understand them settling on a design with a lower output than current F1 since they want to save money and F1 is literally 'spend as much as you can afford' at least for a couple more years, but a goal of less than 1/3 the power output of what is currently being deployed elsewhere is a bit of a joke.

Honda and Chevy are not developing the hybrid system, it will be a bolt-on, and common across the entire grid.

Indycar allows only a single chassis and one of only two power plants. How do you build a technology war on such a limited basis? I gave up on Indycar decades ago. Right now it's little more than high-powered club racing with spec. cars.(Let the downvotes begin.)

While in principle it's nice to see, it also seems like a rather token effort. 50hp when Chevy have 3 years to get their engine working? (Honda should have far fewer issues since there's no MGU-H which is the part that made their recent F1 engines turds until the last couple of seasons)I can fully understand them settling on a design with a lower output than current F1 since they want to save money and F1 is literally 'spend as much as you can afford' at least for a couple more years, but a goal of less than 1/3 the power output of what is currently being deployed elsewhere is a bit of a joke.

Indycar teams run on a budget almost comically small compared to Formula 1 or even NASCAR, so you've got to have that in mind when analyzing their technology efforts. Also, the focus in Indycar since Jay Frye started managing the sport is close racing and identification with its heritage, all that while keeping costs low. The original “next gen” engine formula proposed had no electrification at all and aimed at a “fast and loud” message, echoing the cars of the early 90’s. They’re only adding that now because some engine makers demanded that to join the series. Porsche, in particular, was ready to announce they would join Indycar in 2021 before a late veto due to the fact that there was no hybrid component to the engine formula.Source

Disclaimer: I’m a big motorsports fan and generally think Indycar has the best racing in all major forms of the sport, both in ovals and road courses. Watch some highlights of last weekend’s race at Mid-Ohio on YouTube to get a feeling of what I’m saying.

It can't, which is why (as the article clearly explains) the hybrid system will be from a single supplier.

Which is why now, with identical chassis, and engines from only two suppliers, with all the Honda teams getting the same stuff, and all the Chevy teams getting the same stuff, the teams with very little money are doing so well next to the teams with lots of money.

I'm being sarcastic, and, yes, things are far better now than they were in the glory days, but if you think that just because it's a spec part, everything will be equal, you're not paying attention.

Tangentially, if there's no tunability, adjustability or programmability in the package, then what, exactly, does adding it accomplish other than to increase costs and add another point of failure? As you mention in the story, and as I frequently say, IndyCar (like F1) has virtually no road-relevance, and any attempt to make it appear that way is simply pandering to outside interests. Which leads into a completely different discussion.

While in principle it's nice to see, it also seems like a rather token effort. 50hp when Chevy have 3 years to get their engine working? (Honda should have far fewer issues since there's no MGU-H which is the part that made their recent F1 engines turds until the last couple of seasons)I can fully understand them settling on a design with a lower output than current F1 since they want to save money and F1 is literally 'spend as much as you can afford' at least for a couple more years, but a goal of less than 1/3 the power output of what is currently being deployed elsewhere is a bit of a joke.

Honda and Chevy are not developing the hybrid system, it will be a bolt-on, and common across the entire grid.

Thanks, I read it as each would develop a system that would come as a standard-to-that-engine part, that was also off-limits to the teams in terms of doing anything to modify it.I guess having a single system for 2 seperate engine suppliers potentially adds a greater engineering challenge, I'm not at all familiar with how much leeway (or not) the Indy regulations allow for different approaches in engine design, or if part of this package of changes will also standardise those aspects of the drivetrain that this system will integrate wth.

I never understood the appeal of ovals. I always liked seeing tight racing in corners and straights of various sizes and radii. Racing in ovals seemed to me like an American thing to attract Nascar fans. If any of you like ovals; can you please write why, so I can consider your opinion(s)?

In theory, the same should go for stock car racing...but super speedways and stock cars have never been less exciting. Avoid it like the plague.

Also, I like that Indycar's choices of ovals are fairly various as well: Pocono is a huge tri-oval (three corners instead of four); Texas is a small 1.5 mile high-banked oval with very high speeds and several racing lines; Indianapolis is a giant with four distinct corners; Iowa is a small (under 1 mile) banked oval; etc.

With an electric motor that is only 5% of the total power available why even bother with a hybrid system? It is probably much easier and cheaper to add another 50hp to the turbocharged V6 and drop the electric motor and battery. This move sounds more like marketing than any real improvement in the racing experience.

I never understood the appeal of ovals. I always liked seeing tight racing in corners and straights of various sizes and radii. Racing in ovals seemed to me like an American thing to attract Nascar fans. If any of you like ovals; can you please write why, so I can consider your opinion(s)?

The Indy 500 predates Nascar by almost 40 years and Formula 1 by almost 50. The Euro Grand Prix was driving on public roads when it was built, at least until they included the track in the series.

Overall I’m fine with this. It sounds like a reasoned approach for Indycar. What seems sort of silly to me though is having both this system and push-to-pass if both systems are worth roughly an equivalent amount of power.

My knee-jerk desire would be to have one system produce a small amount more of a power boost than the other, maybe 10-15 HP. Give the car a total pool of “bonus HP” for the race similar to the current 200 seconds for push to pass. Both P2P and KERS debit from this pool with the more powerful system withdrawing at a correspondingly faster rate. Let the drivers pick which one they want to use in a given situation. When the bonus pool is empty, you don’t have either one available.

I don’t like Marshall Pruett’s idea of using the hybrid for pit exit unless you’d still be allowed to exit under ICE power with a penalty. The idea of retiring from a race because the hybrid failed and you couldn’t leave the pits leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Lastly, I’m curious about what the energy storage is going to be. Are there “super capacitors” that could fit the numbers they’re floating? I ask because the concentrated mass of a battery seems like a potential safety issue for ovals.

With an electric motor that is only 5% of the total power available why even bother with a hybrid system? It is probably much easier and cheaper to add another 50hp to the turbocharged V6 and drop the electric motor and battery. This move sounds more like marketing than any real improvement in the racing experience.

It is. And that was the plan. But the engine manufacturers hated the idea, specially Porsche (see my post above), so they came up with this plan.

I'm glad to see things are moving in this direction, but doesn't 50hp seem a bit light for a 900hp total system? Especially with the frequency of braking in Indy races, you'd think the'd be able to recover enough energy for a much more powerful hybrid system.

F1 started out with driver-controlled hybrid deployment (KERS) like indyCar seems to be planning. It was kind of silly because the engineers would figure out the best strategy for deploying the limited hybrid power, and the drivers would just push the button at the optimal points on the circuit. Since the hybrid allocation reset every time they crossed the start/finish line, there was no way to save up hybrid power for later laps and therefore no race strategy.

When the turbo engines arrived, hybrid deployment became integral to the engine mappings, filling in gaps in the torque curve and ensuring seamless shifts up and down the gearbox. It became an invisible feature of the power unit, with not even a TV graphic to indicate when the hybrid is deploying.

I'm not sure which of these outcomes is better: the formality of drivers pushing a button at the same parts of the track, or the invisible hand of hybrid power. Either way, it doesn't seem to improve the show. Since neither F1 nor IndyCar allow traction control, the low-end torque of the electric motor could in theory make the cars more difficult to drive and generate mistakes, but both the invisible hand and the manual button-pushing approaches aim to avoid deployment when the car is traction-limited on the exits of corners.

Thinking about using hybrids on ovals, in a slipstream situation the car in the back could charge his battery at the same rate of his slipstreaming advantage, staying behind the front car while the lesser aero drag is offset by the increased mechanical drag.

It would give the option of 'harvest, pass, repeat ' to leapfrog up the field but use more fuel. Others could keep the battery charged for defensive maneuvers and use the slipstream to save fuel and possibly reduce the number of pit stops.

Overall I’m fine with this. It sounds like a reasoned approach for Indycar. What seems sort of silly to me though is having both this system and push-to-pass if both systems are worth roughly an equivalent amount of power.

My knee-jerk desire would be to have one system produce a small amount more of a power boost than the other, maybe 10-15 HP. Give the car a total pool of “bonus HP” for the race similar to the current 200 seconds for push to pass. Both P2P and KERS debit from this pool with the more powerful system withdrawing at a correspondingly faster rate. Let the drivers pick which one they want to use in a given situation. When the bonus pool is empty, you don’t have either one available.

I don’t like Marshall Pruett’s idea of using the hybrid for pit exit unless you’d still be allowed to exit under ICE power with a penalty. The idea of retiring from a race because the hybrid failed and you couldn’t leave the pits leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Lastly, I’m curious about what the energy storage is going to be. Are there “super capacitors” that could fit the numbers they’re floating? I ask because the concentrated mass of a battery seems like a potential safety issue for ovals.

Super-caps weigh a lot more than batteries for equivalent energy storage. The batteries should be fairly small if they only need to deliver 37 kW.

I'm glad to see things are moving in this direction, but doesn't 50hp seem a bit light for a 900hp total system? Especially with the frequency of braking in Indy races, you'd think the'd be able to recover enough energy for a much more powerful hybrid system.

The article mentioned most of the Indy races are run flat out with no braking.

Which is kind of ridiculous of course, that shows something is probably wrong with the design of the series in and of itself. They used to have to brake.

For the people who don't get Ovals.. I'm not really that into it but I would say Oval racing is a lot better in person than it is on TV, and it's maybe preferable to road courses/circuits in person. I've been to both Indy races and F1 races, Indy and Nascar have a huge advantage for the fan in the seats that you can see the entire track with your eyes and you don't miss anything. Considering Indy predates TV you could see how being able to see the whole race from your seat would make for a better sport.

I can't really stand to watch any of these car races end to end on TV, though I have watched Moto GP races all the way through. But if you're sitting in the stands all of them are fun to watch, and it's really nice with ovals to be able to see everything. Too many cautions at Indy races is kind of terrible in person though.

I think I'd have preferred they had a larger hybrid component. I wonder if the hybrid component was larger what would happen if they could shut the ICE engine off under caution.. that might be interesting in terms of strategy if it was optional.. it could change pit strategy, etc..

I never understood the appeal of ovals. I always liked seeing tight racing in corners and straights of various sizes and radii. Racing in ovals seemed to me like an American thing to attract Nascar fans. If any of you like ovals; can you please write why, so I can consider your opinion(s)?

Oval is much more fun to watch live, because you can see the whole race, not just one corner. It also allows for higher speeds and more precise driving - often times they race few centimeters from each other at enormous speeds. The stakes are also higher because of that - there are many spectacular crashes on ovals, which -- unfortunately - often end up with severe injuries or death. I don't want to sound like I think the injuries and deaths are a good thing, but knowing that the stakes are so high makes it more thrilling to watch and gives more respect to the drivers for having the guts to compete like this.

Indycar allows only a single chassis and one of only two power plants. How do you build a technology war on such a limited basis? I gave up on Indycar decades ago. Right now it's little more than high-powered club racing with spec. cars.(Let the downvotes begin.)

To me the allure of IndyCar is that by using the same hardware, the race is mostly won by the people, not machines. If the driver is good, and the pit crew is able to quickly do their job with no mistakes, and mechanics are able to figure out how to configure car's setup (mostly wings and tires pressure - available equally to all teams) correctly for the track and conditions - you win. There is no hardware advantage that will allow to make mistakes and still win the race - like sometimes happens in F1 races.The common hardware is a great equalizer, and I prefer to watch competition between people, not machines (which often means the company with more money wins because they can afford to build faster cars).

Personally, I stopped watching F1 after they made it possible to finish races without refueling. I like the additional difficulty for drivers to have to conserve fuel - which makes possible interesting strategies based on saving fuel throughout the race. So drivers can gain advantage not just by holding pedal to the metal, but actually need to work on their techniques and be able to coast during turns to not burn too much fuel on acceleration. This is true for oval races, too. If you can save enough fuel to drive a lap or two more before every pit, you might finish the race with less pit stops and ultimately win over cars that were faster but had to stop in pit more often.

I never understood the appeal of ovals. I always liked seeing tight racing in corners and straights of various sizes and radii. Racing in ovals seemed to me like an American thing to attract Nascar fans. If any of you like ovals; can you please write why, so I can consider your opinion(s)?

As an Aussie, I never understood them either. Until I started sim racing and tried ovals from behind the wheel.

Oval racing has mid corner speeds faster than the gearbox will allow a typical road race car to reach in a straight line. And the corners are long/slow and repeated hundreds of times in the race allowing the drivers to find the precise grip limit and stick to it lap after lap.

Just like road racing the grip limit moves from lap to lap as rubber is added to the track and clouds move around and your tyre temperature changes. But with road racing there are so many variables you can’t actually find the grip limit - try and you’ll get it wrong and lock a brake, flat spotting the tyre or put a wheel in the dirt covering it in gravel for the next half a lap.

Go a bit over the limit in oval racing and usually all it costs you is making the tyres a bit too hot temporarily.

Also there’s nothing you can do to defend on an oval track - if your lap is even a tiny bit slower the car behind will overtake. Often in road racing you can get away with a slow car - just take a defensive line and the car behind will stay behind.

Oval racing is a much more pure form of racing where the driver has to be perfect. And the same for the engineering team.

Finally, while I’ve never been to an oval race in person I’m sure it’s a much better experience than most road races - because you can see the entire track from the grandstand instead of just one or two corners.

Regenerative hybrids would be useless, as the article notes, on ovals - you only really come down in speed when it's time to pit or stay behind the pace car.

Ovals would be the perfect place to have the F1 MGU-H, which takes surplus exhaust energy at wide open throttle and feeds it into an electric motor without having to go to the battery first - more power/less fuel at top speed, not on acceleration. But while old warbird dogs exchange tall tales about piston-engine turbocompounding with a twinkle in their eyes, everybody hates the MGU-H.

In 2025, at the most, there will be several versions available on the cheap because by then, they'll be gone from F1.

As for the Indycar KERS: the fastest car on F1 during the KERS regulations (2009-2014, 80HP) either didn't have it (Brawn) or had a kneecapped version that was really being used as a form of traction control (RedBull). Token hybrids for greenwashing, even back then.

Indycar allows only a single chassis and one of only two power plants. How do you build a technology war on such a limited basis? I gave up on Indycar decades ago. Right now it's little more than high-powered club racing with spec. cars.(Let the downvotes begin.)

Then you’ve missed excellent and highly competitive Indycar racing for the last 5 years or so.

Indycar allows only a single chassis and one of only two power plants. How do you build a technology war on such a limited basis? I gave up on Indycar decades ago. Right now it's little more than high-powered club racing with spec. cars.(Let the downvotes begin.)

Spec racing to the point that McLaren even with Alonso driving did not qualify for the Indy 500 when trying to field their own car this year with a HUGE budget. Whereas, in his rookie year, 2017, Alonso qualified 5th driving for the experienced and well funded Andretti team. It definitely wasn't a driver "skill" issue.

Sure, the tech is basically the same, but knowing how to set up the car properly matters as well.

The little guys have *more* of a fighting chance in Indycar, but definitely in the end, the big teams with the most money, and hence expertise, win more races per season, but for any one particular race, there is no certain winner even after qualifying. I like this sort of "most teams have a fighting chance" type of racing better than the Technological (or rules jiggering) Dominance racing of F1 where usually one or two teams dominate, and the rest don't have a chance unless it rains, or the top teams' drivers' take each other out because of their big egos.

Instead of oval, they should go figure-8: if you set it up with a shallow-angle cross-over, cars would just be merging across each other, like a collector-distributor; you could maintain the high speeds and grandstand-viewability in a more terrifying event.

I never understood the appeal of ovals. I always liked seeing tight racing in corners and straights of various sizes and radii. Racing in ovals seemed to me like an American thing to attract Nascar fans. If any of you like ovals; can you please write why, so I can consider your opinion(s)?

Load one up in a sim and try it. It's almost meditative, as you have to drive perfectly consistent laps, all the while immersed in lap traffic. And there's no room for error; even the slightest mistakes quickly put you off pace, or worse, into the wall.

Indycar allows only a single chassis and one of only two power plants. How do you build a technology war on such a limited basis? I gave up on Indycar decades ago. Right now it's little more than high-powered club racing with spec. cars.(Let the downvotes begin.)

...Personally, I stopped watching F1 after they made it possible to finish races without refueling. I like the additional difficulty for drivers to have to conserve fuel - which makes possible interesting strategies based on saving fuel throughout the race. So drivers can gain advantage not just by holding pedal to the metal, but actually need to work on their techniques and be able to coast during turns to not burn too much fuel on acceleration. This is true for oval races, too.

THIS. Driving, if returned to F1, would make it a much better series. As it is, the drivers are nearly ballast.

CART was the logical conclusion of open-wheel oval racing. They raced on the newer, steeper-banked NASCAR ovals and didn't restrict car performance enough, and it wound up being unworkable. The g-forces got to the point where the drivers were getting dizzy from vertigo.

The IndyCar calendar is down to about 1/3 ovals, and they don't run on the more steeply-banked 1.5-mile NASCAR ovals anymore. Chances are that there will be no ovals added to the calendar in the future, and if they're going to continue racing on the remaining ovals, they have to keep the speeds reasonable. The Indy 500 is obviously essential to the series, and the <10-degree banking makes this oval much more suitable for open-wheel racing with downforce.

Ultimately, though, while ovals may be entertaining, it's not the natural habitat of open-wheel racing. The whole point of these cars is that they can take corners at remarkable speeds without any banking at all, and they don't get to show that unique capability on ovals.

[... Finally, while I’ve never been to an oval race in person I’m sure it’s a much better experience than most road races - because you can see the entire track from the grandstand instead of just one or two corners.

Not quite true. The Indianapolis Motor Speedway is so large, the best you can do is see about half of the course. And only a few seats high outside a turn offer that view.

On the other hand, there are things you can see only at IMS. In 1986, during a red flag for light rain, some fans north of turn four started "the wave", which flowed down the main straightaway and around to turn two. Seeing (and participating in) a wave that was about 80 rows deep and more than a mile in length was spectacular.

[... Finally, while I’ve never been to an oval race in person I’m sure it’s a much better experience than most road races - because you can see the entire track from the grandstand instead of just one or two corners.

Not quite true. The Indianapolis Motor Speedway is so large, the best you can do is see about half of the course. And only a few seats high outside a turn offer that view.

On the other hand, there are things you can see only at IMS. In 1986, during a red flag for light rain, some fans north of turn four started "the wave", which flowed down the main straightaway and around to turn two. Seeing (and participating in) a wave that was about 80 rows deep and more than a mile in length was spectacular.

Still - being able to see 2 corners on a 4 corner track is better than the great road tracks like Mount Panorama where you can see one corner on a track with 23 of them.

I never understood the appeal of ovals. I always liked seeing tight racing in corners and straights of various sizes and radii. Racing in ovals seemed to me like an American thing to attract Nascar fans. If any of you like ovals; can you please write why, so I can consider your opinion(s)?

It's a different discipline, and IndyCar's combination of ovals, street courses, and road courses is something few (if any) other series can claim.

Car setup is much more important on an oval, and the element of speed (lap average at Indy is 230 mph, and where else does a pack of 33 cars enter turn 1 at such speed?), risk (even SAFER walls hurt when you hit them), and juggling aero and mechanical grip while trying to pass others at such speeds is demanding, if not scary (as many an F1 driver has admitted. Max Chilton is just the latest).

It's not as simple as mashing the throttle and hanging on, as it may appear to the layman; some ovals require braking and downshifting.

Whether it's better is subjective, but to think that it's any less demanding would be a mistake.

***

Almost every major series has hybrid engine formulas in future plans. While some fans are up in arms, that's clearly the direction that the OEMs want to go (and are willing to subsidize, up to a point).

A major part of IndyCar's renaissance has come under the guidance of Jay Frye, who is probably the best and most important executive the series has had for some time (even disregarding its traditionally low standards in that regard). IndyCar's adoption of hybrids won't reflect that of F1 and WEC, if his track record is to be trusted.